2011 Mustang

[adsm08]

The Cobra with the IRS was from 1999 to 2004.

Huh, I thought it was earlier than that.

Anyway... anyone ever seen a Mustang GT-R?

 

[superds]

Huh, I thought it was earlier than that.

Anyway... anyone ever seen a Mustang GT-R?

Nope, Cobra IRS was 99-04 (breaks for 2000 and 2002 that didn't have Cobra models, but the Cobra R was produced in 2000 and that had IRS). You may be thinking of one of the other Cobra inovations, the DOHC 4.6L that was introduced in 1996.

What year did they make the GT-R?

 

[Jason]

Did, and I like my mom's old 68' Mustang Fastback from the movie Steve McQueen!!

It has flared fenders, a 253hp (could be bigger) small-block (from a totaled racecar), and I used to get driven to elementary school in it! haha! it was not street legal but no one bothered because it was literally that cool (no joke, mom was pulled over 3 or 4 times just so the cops could look at it!!!), and it was sold to an guy in California back when we needed some cash v_v. Was my mom's first car, and I am looking for it, its dark green, and has a blue engine, black firewall, and yellow wires, with a messed up wiring, because my uncle tried hot wiring it so he could drive it to work b/c he had no car at the moment).

The movie was Bullitt. Steve McQueen was just the star and I sold a perfect replica of that car in 1996.

 

[Ranger Kip]

wow, why?

 

[bobbywalter]

true, the funny thing is the mustangs in 84 used the same engine as the 84 rangers! haha! the 2.8L V6 Cologne! (made in Germany, carb., 3-speed tranny).

But remember the fact that muscle cars were designed with power in mind (thus the MUSCLE, in muscle car), and I personally put the older engines in a different category than today's, which are basically 3x's more difficult to modify than the older engines. (due to setup), this is comparing a 2010 engine to a 1980's engine. (the differences are large too).

have you been to a dealership of any kind lately?


since when the fawk is 400 hp not a muscle car???????

 

[bobbywalter]

how the fawk is an ls not easily modded????


wtf dude? i sure as hell can get 200 more hp alot easier out of a modern dealer showroom ls setup then most anything from the real muscle car era.


well.. ever since they took all the magic carb tweaker screwdrivers away that were only available in the 60's.....so 600 dailydriver hp is actually possible now...but not muscle?

 

[Jason]

wow, why?

The money people were wiling to pay for that car far exceeded the value of a poor handling, horrible braking car.

 

[tiresmokindad]

The new engines seem pretty sweet from what I've read. 412 hp in the GT. Anyone had a chance to drive one yet? Has anyone seen any show up at dealerships yet? I looked at the local dealership website and they said they had several in inventory but when I actually went to the dealer to look at one, there weren't any to be had I think they never had any, just showing what they had on order...dirty tricks.

Wow! 412 horse power is so fast and furious. I think your GT is so nice. I feel sorry for what happen. I think you should find new engines.

 

[r1hatman]

The Mustang is hardly a sports car.

Bite your tongue!

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

What is that thing?

This is what the '10-'11 cars look like...

Yuk!

Why did you change my post around on me? My comments were below that picture, and above the picture of the actual 10-11 cars (and refered to that, you had to see it when you edited it) If you want to quote quote me fine but if you want to add your own babble to a thread, don't do so in someone else's quote box.

only thing i dont like about the 10-11 is the rear design, dunno, the previosu tail lights were better to me

I agree, it is a weak spot. They probably did it in the name of aerodynamics but I would prefer something like what they had on the 67-68 cars. It does give it an aggressive lunging ahead look, it is growing on me. Compared to the current style the 05-09's were almost too chunky for me.

That was the Mustang II that used the 2.8L. Calling the Mustang II a Muscle car is on par with calling a 1984 Chevy Nova (Chevette platform) 1993 Pontiac Le-mans (Geo Metro platform) a Muscle car.

I would also like to point out that the Mustang was not originally intended to be a muscle or sports car. It was originally designed as a family car (and the show proto-type was badged "Probe"). Put that in your pipe and think about it.

Early foxbody's had 2.8's too. Dunno when they started or stopped putting them in but they were an option. There is almost more crap about them in my Foxbody Mustang Chiltons than the one for my Ranger...

They were not designed to be a family car. They were originally penned as a "secretary car". Someone that has a little more money and wants something that looks and drives nice but doesn't really care about all out performance. That changed slightly as they started bumping heads with the Camaro. It was/is a pony car and never really was a muscle car.

 

[Mac]

true, the funny thing is the mustangs in 84 used the same engine as the 84 rangers! haha! the 2.8L V6 Cologne!

Well, what goes around, comes around. The Mustang from '05-10' have shared the same basic 4.0L with the Ranger. Now if they would start sharing the same new V-6!
Dave

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

true, the funny thing is the mustangs in 84 used the same engine as the 84 rangers! haha! the 2.8L V6 Cologne! (made in Germany, carb., 3-speed tranny).

But remember the fact that muscle cars were designed with power in mind (thus the MUSCLE, in muscle car), and I personally put the older engines in a different category than today's, which are basically 3x's more difficult to modify than the older engines. (due to setup), this is comparing a 2010 engine to a 1980's engine. (the differences are large too).

Also comparing a 2011 engine to a plain 302 of about any year... right around the 400hp mark (where the new 5.0 is without touching a thing) pushrod 302's (that were doing really good to make 250hp from the factory) are known to split the factory block right down the middle.

Yup, lots easier to modify the old stuff... because you have to.

Not that is hard to hang a blower kit and stick a tuner on a new engine for either...

 

[Hopman]

Well, what goes around, comes around. The Mustang from '05-10' have shared the same basic 4.0L with the Ranger. Now if they would start sharing the same new V-6!
Dave

That might make the pefect gas Ranger. Say a slightly remapped ECU for the Ranger 3.7 V6. 250 HP (don't need 300 hp in a Ranger!!!) and about 300 lb-ft of torque (you Do need that!) would be a good starting point.

Heck, you could introduce a model caled the Clydesdale and have the full Mustang spec to it.

 

[adsm08]

That might make the pefect gas Ranger. Say a slightly remapped ECU for the Ranger 3.7 V6. 250 HP (don't need 300 hp in a Ranger!!!) and about 300 lb-ft of torque (you Do need that!) would be a good starting point.

Heck, you could introduce a model caled the Clydesdale and have the full Mustang spec to it.

I like that idea.

 

[Ranger Kip]

why not put all the performance parts in the ranger and gave it a rank promotion, this truck has been at ranger for years! (lol)